Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Krowbar who wrote (31128)	2/18/1999 9:28:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Christine, What do you suppose would happen if anyone who wanted could call a president into court while he was serving in office. The question you should be asking is why this was allowed to go as far as it did. It was only because of unrelenting pressure by the far right. If it was justice that Paula wanted why was she so pleased with the cash. How could you ever prove a "he said, she said" case? It was proper for him to use legal means to try to block this case until he was out of office.>> Del, what you wrote right there vilifies Paula Jones, for one thing, and deflects any responsibility from Clinton. This is the normal tactic of Clinton's defenders--to make everyone else look bad, when he is the sexual predator. It also shows that you do not understand the nature of sexual harassment. Past sexual behavior has been deemed relevant in these cases because sexual predators are typically repeat offenders. There is a long list of women who were used, and in one case perhaps forcibly raped, by Clinton. This is relevant, and is exactly what raises the case from "he said, she said." Incidentally, I took a sexual harassment training at work, and the trainer noted that it is very rare to be falsely accused of sexual harassment in the workplace, according to all the research that has been done. That is why sexual harassment cases ARE taken seriously. Of course, all the Clintonistas in the audience were shocked by these statistics, and wanted to argue. The Supreme Court ruled that the Jones case could go forward. In retrospect it does not seem like that was a good idea, but I think the reason has more to do with the extremely low moral character of the criminal we have in the White House than anything else. Certainly, a president who vacations regularly and spends a lot of time on the golf course theoretically does have the time to be deposed and prepare a defense in a civil case. The other issue here is that a citizen should not be deprived of her civil rights simply because someone who may have wronged her is elected to high office afterwards.